with the addition of protective clothing bearing in mind that thermal radiation may
be expected from all angles due to scatter. It is emphasised that
in the event of the expected yield being obtained or increased
there will almost certainly be, in addition to considerable
material damage, casualties to individuals and this should be
taken into account."
On 12 March 1984 a debate took place in the House of Commons on
the question of the atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the United
Kingdom in the Pacific. The content of the Chiefs of Staff's paper
dated 20 May 1953 (noted above) was raised and the Minister for Defence
Procurement responded by stating that what happened was that:
"The blast and thermal and radiation consequences of a nuclear
explosion on man were determined by making measurements of the
flux level of various protected and unprotected positions using
instruments, and then calculating what the consequences of those
flux levels would be for man."
The Minister for Defence Procurement also confirmed that during
the 1956 tests in Maralinga and in order to "allow servicemen
experience the effects of nuclear explosions at ranges closer than
previously allowed, ... 200 United Kingdom servicemen were stationed
at about eight kilometres up wind from zero".
During that debate a Member of Parliament read a letter received
that day from the Joint Committee on the Medical Effects of Nuclear
Weapons which confirmed that the National Radiological Protection
Board's ("NRPB") expertise was in monitoring radiation exposure not in
carrying out epidemiological health surveys and, furthermore,
expressing surprise that the Government entrusted the investigation
into its own liability to a Government body when other bodies, whose
impartiality could not be reasonably questioned, were available to do
the work. The Minister for Defence Procurement responded by referring
to a previous discussion in the House of Commons about the independence
and suitability of the NRPB and indicating that he had hoped that the
relevant Members of Parliament, who had raised the questions of him,
would be prepared to accept a body with the experience of the NRPB as
an acceptable assessment source.
2. The Royal Commission into British Nuclear Testing in Australia
The Australian Royal Commission was appointed in July 1984 by the
Queen to enquire into the conduct of the Australian tests. That
Commission was furnished with documentation including statements, plans
and reports covering the planning, execution and results of some of the
test activity in Australia, which documents were also transferred at
the same time (mid-1980s) to the United Kingdom Public Records Office
under reference number DEFE16. The report of the Australian Royal
Commission published in 1985 noted, inter alia, the following:
(a) The United Kingdom was misleading in supplying information to the
Australian Government about the tests.
(b) Various specific tests and projects were criticised as being
carried out in an inappropriate and negligent manner causing danger to
both civilian populations and military personnel. For example, the
Royal Commission found that the safety precautions against radiation
exposure employed at Maralinga, South Australia, demonstrated,
"ignorance, incompetence and cynicism" by the United Kingdom for the
safety of persons in the vicinity of those tests.
(c) There were some serious departures from the contemporary
radiation protection policies and standards during the test programme.
(d) Exposure to radiation at certain dose levels is associated with
increased risk of cancer and genetic effects. While increased frequency
of genetic effect has not been demonstrated in any irradiated human
population (and noting that such a study would not be practicable), it
is accepted that such effects do occur. By reason of the major
detonations and the deposition of fallout across Australia, it is
probable that cancers, which would not otherwise have occurred, have
been caused in the Australian population.
The Royal Commission recommended that the United Kingdom
Government clean up certain test areas and that the benefits of certain
compensation legislation be extended to include not only military
personnel but also civilians who were at the test sites at the relevant
time. By agreement dated 10 December 1993 the United Kingdom agreed to
pay £20 million to the Government of Australia in settlement of all
claims made by any persons (excluding United Kingdom test participants)
for injuries connected with the test programme.
3. Relevant statistical studies and reports
(a) NRPB report (1988)
Due to increasing concern expressed in the media about early
deaths of test veterans, the Ministry of Defence commissioned the NRPB
(in conjunction with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund) to carry out
a study into mortality and cancer rates amongst the test veterans. The
NRPB compared the mortality and cancer rates of a body of test veterans
(22,247 persons) with a control group (army personnel who passed
similar medical tests on entry into service but who did not participate
in the testing).
The NRPB report concluded that participation in the nuclear
weapon testing programme did not have a detectable effect on the test
veterans' overall expectation of life, nor on their total risk of
developing cancer. However, the test veterans demonstrated a higher
rate of leukaemia and multiple myeloma than the control group.
As a result, the Department of Social Services, which administers
the war pensions legislation, subsequently awarded war pensions to
those presenting with these two conditions.
(b) NRPB report (1993)
A follow up report was completed by the NRPB extending the period
of review over seven more years so that almost double the number of
deaths were available for analysis.
The NRPB again concluded that there had been no detectable
difference in the veterans' expectation of life nor as regards their
risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. The suggestion from
the previous report that participants may have experienced small
hazards of leukaemia and multiple myeloma, was found not to be
supported by the additional data used for the second report and the
excesses observed in the first report were reported as being a chance
finding, although the possibility that test participation may have
caused an additional risk could not be completely ruled out.
(c) British Nuclear Test Veterans Association ("BNTVA") report (1992)
In or around February 1992 the BNTVA conducted its own survey of
its members and this report concluded that 1 in 5 of its members
suffered from cancer and that 1 in 4 veterans had children who suffered
from defects attributable to genetic origin.
(d) Atomic Weapons Establishment ("AWE") report (1993)
In 1993 personnel with the AWE produced a report which described
and summarised the environmental monitoring undertaken at Christmas
Island during the series of test detonations. It concluded that there
was no detectable increase in radioactivity on land, in the sea or in
the air pursuant to the Christmas Island testing. It also concluded
that there was therefore no danger to personnel from external radiation
nor from inhalation and ingestion of radioactivity. The report is
stated not to necessarily represent the official views of the AWE.
(e) Neel reports (1981 and 1990)
Following the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima the United States
collected data on child births (between 1947 and 1951) and on survivors
(for many years after the bombings). This data formed the basis for the
1981 and 1990 Neel reports. The purpose of the data collection was to
study the effects of the radiation on survivors and the genetic
consequences on children conceived thereafter. There were difficulties
in collecting the data from a largely uncooperative population and the
studies, in relation to the children, were inconclusive.
(f) Gardner report (1990)
In 1983 the United Kingdom set up an independent committee to
study the tenfold incidence of leukaemia in Sellafield, a town in the
United Kingdom in close proximity to a nuclear power station. In 1984
the committee reported that the disease was more common than could be
explained by chance and that external radiation from the plant was too
low to cause the leukaemia excess. Thereafter a member of that
committee, Professor Gardner, and others conducted three
epidemiological studies which concluded in 1990 that the increased
incidence of leukaemia among children near Sellafield was associated
with parental employment and the recorded doses of external whole body
penetrating radiation during work at the plant before conception.
Subsequently, the children of two former workers at the nuclear
plant took an action for damages as their fathers had received
significant doses of radiation as a result of their work, the children
had contracted cancer (acute lymphatic leukaemia and non-Hodgkins
lymphoma) and claimed that this was the result of paternal
preconception irradiation (Reay and Hope v. British Nuclear Fuels
[1994] 5 Med LR 2). The action was unsuccessful, the court finding
that, on the balance of probabilities, the available scientific
evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the children's cancer was
caused by their fathers' exposure. The court found, as regards the
Gardner report, that it conflicted with the Neel studies and that it
required further confirmatory studies.
(g) Sir Richard Doll review paper (1993)
Sir Richard Doll, a leading British epidemiologist, published a
paper in the Journal of Radiological Protection in 1993 which,
according to the Government, effectively dismissed Professor Gardner's
conclusions.
C. Relevant domestic law and practice
Civil action for compensation
It was accepted by the Secretary of State for Defence in the
House of Commons on 12 April 1994 that the Ministry of Defence "would
consider compensation for any British test veteran whose death or
illness had been caused by radiation from the atmospheric tests".
The right to compensation under common law is enforceable through
the civil courts once the applicant proves that, given the state of
knowledge at the relevant time, his illness or injury was reasonably
foreseeable and, on the balance of probability, was in fact caused by
the action or inaction of the person against whom he is claiming.
However, armed forces personnel, whose cause of action arose on duty
before 1987, are barred from suing the Crown from compensation by
section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. (The repeal of section
10 in 1987 was not applicable to those claiming in respect of pre-1987
actions.) It is disputed between the parties whether that immunity from
suit is applicable in relation to test veterans or the applicant.
The Government claim that the case of Pearce v. The Secretary of
State for Defence and Ministry of Defence and Another [1988] 2
WLR 145 allows persons such as the applicant to take a case
against the Secretary of State despite the immunity from
prosecution set down in section 10 of the 1947 Act.
The applicant disputes the availability of such a civil action,
submitting that the above-mentioned Pearce case arose out of very
particular and different facts.
To date neither a test veteran nor a test veteran's child has
been awarded damages in a civil action of this nature as none have been
able to establish the causal link between the nuclear testing and a
particular illness.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, in the first place, under Articles 2 and
3 of the Convention. The applicant recognises that the relevant nuclear
detonations occurred prior to the United Kingdom's acceptance of the
right of individual petition. She complains primarily of the United
Kingdom Government's failure to inform and advise in relation to her
father's exposure to radiation during the nuclear tests in Christmas
Island, his medical condition and treatment at the time and in relation
to the consequent risk to her health. She contends, inter alia, that
such failure prevented pre-natal and post-natal monitoring of the
applicant, which would have led to her early diagnosis and treatment
and a longer and qualitatively better life.
In addition, the applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of
the Convention. She refers to the surveillance and interception of
telephone calls and mail of members of the BNTVA (in particular to
specific incidents involving the Chairman of the BNTVA), which
surveillance the applicant claims infringes those members' freedom of
expression and freedom of association and suggests that she has been
subject to interception and surveillance also.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 21 April 1993 and was
registered on 7 February 1994.
On 9 January 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and to request them to submit
observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's
complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
The observations of the Government were received on 29 May 1995
after two extensions in the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The
observations of the applicant in reply were received on 29 August 1995
after one extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.
THE LAW
Articles 2 and 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the Convention.
The applicant essentially complains under these Articles of the
Convention about the impact on her of the Government's failure to
inform and advise in relation to her father's exposure to nuclear
detonations on Christmas Island and in relation to the consequent risk
to her health. Articles 2 and 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the Convention, insofar
as relevant, read as follows:
Article 2 (Art. 2)
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one
shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution
of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for
which this penalty is provided by law."
Article 3 (Art. 3)
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment."
1. Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention
The Government argue that the applicant cannot claim to be a
victim of a violation of the Convention because her father's exposure
to radiation can be measured at effectively zero and because, even if
her father was exposed to higher levels, there is no scientific
evidence to substantiate the applicant's claim that her illness was
caused by her father's exposure.
The Government further argue that any complaint by the applicant
about a failure to inform and advise prior to her conception would be
incompatible with the Convention ratione temporis because she would
have been conceived in or around July 1965.
The applicant argues that the Government's submissions, as
regards the level of her father's exposure to radiation and the
connection between her illness and that exposure, are so closely
connected to the merits of the application that such issues must be
joined with the merits. The applicant further points out that the
United Kingdom recognised the right of individual petition on 14
January 1966, that the applicant was born approximately three months
later and that her leukaemia was not diagnosed until approximately four
and half years later.
The Commission accepts that, insofar as the applicant's
complaints refer to a failure to inform and advise prior to the date
of recognition of the individual right of petition by the United
Kingdom (being 14 January 1966), such complaints are incompatible with
the Convention ratione temporis and as such must be declared
inadmissible pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the question
of the level of the applicant's father's exposure to radiation and that
of the relationship between her illness and her father's exposure are
closely connected to the merits of the application and, as such, the
Commission's findings in this respect must be joined with the merits
of the application.
2. Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention - exhaustion of domestic
remedies
The Government refer to the case of Pearce v. the Secretary of
State for Defence and Another [1988] 2 WLR 145 and argue that, since
the applicant has not taken a similar civil action, she has not
exhausted all domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of
the Convention.
The availability of this remedy is disputed by the applicant who
submits that the immunity from suit still exists and, in any event,
such an action would not provide an effective remedy. In this respect
the applicant submits, inter alia, that there is a significant
difference between her case and Mr. Pearce's case as she would be
taking an action against the armed forces rather than against private
individuals. The applicant also contends that Mr. Pearce's case
presented an extremely particular set of the facts and points out, in
relation to this latter submission, that no one has ever succeeded in
any such action (not even Mr. Pearce).
The Commission recalls that, according to the constant case-law
of the Convention organs, the applicant is required to exhaust only
domestic remedies that are likely to be effective and adequate (see,
for example, No. 13156/87, Dec. 1.7.92, D.R. 73 p. 5). A remedy which
clearly lacks any prospect of success is not considered a domestic
remedy which must, pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,
be exhausted (No. 12097/86, Dec. 13.7.87, D.R. 53 p. 210). In addition,
the burden of proving the existence of available and sufficient
remedies lies upon the State invoking non-exhaustion (No. 13057/87,
Dec. 15.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 243).
The Commission notes that the Pearce case did not involve an
allegation that the armed forces had acted negligently. Even assuming
that this remedy is available to the applicants, the Commission
considers that such a remedy would not be effective. No test veteran
or member of a test veteran's family has been awarded damages in a
civil action of this nature as none has been able to establish the
causal link between the nuclear testing and a particular illness.
Indeed the Government themselves refer to the case of Reay and Hope v.
British Nuclear Fuels [1994] 5 Med LR 2 where the court did not accept
that the plaintiffs, children of former workers at the Sellafield
nuclear plant in the United Kingdom the latter of whom it is accepted
were exposed to significant doses of radiation, had proved their case
that their illness was caused by their fathers' exposure.
The Commission therefore finds that a civil action for damages
against the armed forces cannot be considered, in the present case, to
be an effective and adequate domestic remedy. The Commission therefore
concludes that these complaints of the applicant should not be declared
inadmissible on grounds of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies
set out in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
3. Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention - six months
The Government also argue that, insofar as the applicant
complains about the exposure of her father in 1958 and about the
failure to warn her parents of the possible effects of that exposure
prior to the applicant being diagnosed as suffering from acute myeloid
leukaemia in 1970, such complaints have been introduced outside the
time-limit set down by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
The applicant points out that she only became aware of the
alleged connection between her illness and her father's radiation
exposure in December 1992. Thereafter she joined a group of veterans
from the BNTVA who brought an application to the Commission on 20 April
1993.
The Commission recalls that it is accepted by the applicant that
any complaint about the fact of her father's participation in the tests
is outside the scope of review of the Commission. It is also recalled
that where there is no final decision, the six-month time-limitnormally
runs from the date of the acts or decisions of which the applicant
complains but that that period can only begin to run from the moment
the applicant learns of that act or decision (cf., for example, No.
12015/86, Dec. 6.7.88, D.R. 57 p. 108).
The Commission notes that it is not disputed by the Government
that the applicant became aware of the possible connection, between her
illness and the exposure of her father to ionising radiation, in
December 1992 when a statistical report (produced by the BNTVA and
entitled "Radiation Exposure and Subsequent Health History of Veterans
and their Children") was brought to her attention. The Commission
therefore considers that the date from which the six month time-limit
runs is the date of this discovery.
The Commission also notes that a global application on behalf of
members of the BNTVA was received by the Commission in April 1993. That
application detailed the relevant background to the experimental
nuclear tests and included the same complaints as are now raised by the
applicant. The BNTVA application also included a signed statement of
the applicant who was then a member of the BNTVA, in support of the
complaints made, outlining the background to her father's exposure to
radiation, his subsequent medical treatment and her illness. By letter
dated 10 October 1993 the BNTVA's legal representative informed the
Commission that he intended to transform the global application into
a number of individual applications and the present individual
application was submitted by the applicant on 31 December 1993.
The Commission considers that the applicant's participation in
the initial global application received by the Commission in April 1993
constituted sufficient introduction of her application before the
Commission for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention
(No. 10293/83 Dec. 12.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 41). Therefore the Commission
finds that the present application has been introduced within the time-
limit set down by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
4. The applicant's complaints - Articles 2 and 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the
Convention
The applicant refers to the failure by the United Kingdom
Government to inform and advise her parents as to her father's exposure
during his participation in nuclear tests and as to the consequent risk
to her health. She contends, inter alia, that such failure prevented
pre-natal and post-natal monitoring of the applicant, which would have
led to her early diagnosis and treatment and a longer and qualitatively
better life.
The Government do not dispute that the applicant's father would
have been ordered to line up on a beach in light clothing during the
detonations at Christmas Island, to face away from the detonation while
covering his eyes and then after the detonation to turn back around
again. Nor is it disputed that the applicant's father may have seen the
bone structure of his hands at the flash of the detonation. However,
the Government point out that this "mustering" process was for the
servicemen's own safety in order to ensure that servicemen did not look
directly at the flash of light from the detonation as this could have
damaged their eyes.
The Government deny that the applicant was a test subject. As
regards the Chiefs of Staff's paper dated 20 May 1953, the Government
point out that that paper also referred to the impracticality of
exposing men to atomic weapons "at least within the range of
irreversible tissue damage" and that the Minister for Defence
Procurement refuted allegations of deliberate experimental irradiation
of servicemen in the House of Commons in 1984.
Furthermore, the Government, while accepting that the applicant's
father was not issued with a film badge for monitoring external
radiation, submit that the applicant's father worked as a catering
assistant, that his job would not have involved significant levels of
radiation and that his dose is assessed at effectively zero. In this
respect the Government submit that if servicemen were exposed as the
applicant submits, an overall excess of cancer would be expected among
those servicemen. However, the conclusions of the statistical surveys
and analyses conducted by the NRPB (a body independent of the Ministry
of Defence) show no such increased mortality or cancer rate in the test
participants. In addition, if the applicant's father had been exposed
to dangerous doses of ionising radiation, in the manner in which the
applicant claims, the consequences would have been far more serious
than alleged by the applicant.
Moreover, the Government argue that even if the applicant was
exposed as he submits, there is no conclusive evidence that this causes
a predisposition to certain illnesses in children and in this respect
the Government rely on the conclusions in the 1990 Neel report, a 1993
paper published by a leading epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll and the
decision of the court in the case of Reay and Hope v. British Nuclear
Fuels [1994] 5 Med LR 2. The Government add that the BNTVA's report
does not appear to be a peer reviewed published scientific paper.
In addition, while there may be an obligation under Article 2
(Art. 2) of the Convention to take appropriate steps to safeguard life,
there is no evidence that the Government ought reasonably to have been
aware of any increased risk to the applicant of cancer so as to be able
to warn her parents prior to the applicant's leukaemia being diagnosed
and there was, therefore, no obligation on the Government to warn the
applicant's parents in relation to effects of the applicant's father's
exposure.
Furthermore and as regards Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention,
the Government, relying on the Ireland v. the United Kingdom case (Eur.
Court H.R., judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para.
162), argue that the applicant in the present case cannot show any
direct treatment of an inhuman and degrading nature. Alternatively,
even if the treatment was direct in that sense, it was not of the
severity to constitute a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention.
The applicant maintains her account of her father's deliberate
exposure to radiation by the beach front parades to detonations with
a radiation yield and destruction power which greatly exceeded the
detonations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and of his participation in the
subsequent clean up operations. Since no film badges were issued, she
challenges the Government's statement, that her father's dose of
radiation is effectively assessed at zero, as bald.
The applicant questions how beach front parades in light clothing
and the order to face the detonation site immediately thereafter could
possibly have been designed as a safety measure for servicemen. In the
first place, she submits that the military authorities foresaw blasts
of such force as to cause servicemen's exposure to radiation together
with considerable material damage and casualties. Secondly, she submits
that adequate safety measures, in those circumstances, would have
required shielding (as opposed to exposure) behind properly designed
embankments, in low lying areas or in properly constructed buildings
with protective clothing and eye protection.
The applicant also submits that the interpretation of the Chiefs
of Staff's paper dated 20 May 1953 given to the House of Commons on 12
March 1984 is unconvincing and that it was correctly rejected by
Members of Parliament as an attempt to distort plain English.
The applicant challenges in some detail the NRPB reports. The
applicant notes that, while the 1985 NRPB results demonstrated that
levels of leukaemia and multiple myeloma were three times higher in the
veterans' grouping and that leukaemia was a "cancer most closely
associated with ionising radiation", the study concluded that this
difference was due to the extraordinarily low incidence of those
diseases in the control group, which conclusion would seem to undermine
the very rationale of using a control group. In addition, the NRPB did
not have access to the certain documents.
In relation to the 1993 survey, the applicant questions in detail
the basis for the inclusion and exclusion of certain servicemen from
the study. She also challenges the sufficiency of the information on
participants with cancer and the conclusion of the report in relation
to the incidence of leukaemia in veterans. The applicant submits that
the report's conclusions contain inferences which contravene the
comparison hypotheses upon which the studies were based. Finally the
applicant questions the suitability and independence of the NRPB
referring to the letter read by a Member of Parliament on 12 March 1984
to the House of Commons from the Joint Committee on the Medical Effects
of Nuclear Weapons and noting that all information in terms of the test
veterans and the control group was supplied to the NRPB by the Ministry
of Defence.
Finally, the applicant refers in detail to the criticisms by the
Australian Commission of the United Kingdom Government's conduct of the
testing in Australia (which took place at the same time as the testing
in Christmas Island) and to the consequent agreement by the United
Kingdom Government to pay compensation to the Australian Government.
The Commission finds, in light of the parties' submissions, that
this part of the application raises complex and serious issues under
Articles 2 and 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the Convention which require
determination on the merits. It follows that these complaints of the
applicant cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other
ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.
Interception of communications
The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11)
of the Convention in relation to surveillance and interception of
telephone calls and mail of members of the BNTVA (in particular to
specific incidents involving the Chairman of the BNTVA). She claims,
inter alia, that that surveillance infringes those members' freedom of
expression and association and suggests that she has been subject to
interception and surveillance also.
The Government submit, inter alia, that the applicant has not
adduced sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of
interception of her telephones or mail.
The Commission recalls that, though the applicant raises these
complaints under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11) of the Convention,
the lex specialis as regards alleged interference with communication
of information or ideas by correspondence is Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention and it is further recalled that communication by telephone
is included in that concept of "correspondence" (No. 8231/78, Dec.
12.10.83, D.R. 49 p. 5 and Eur. Court H.R., A v. France judgment of
23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B). Therefore, the Commission finds
that these complaints fall to be considered under Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention.
However, the Commission has examined the submissions of the
applicant as to the alleged interceptions and considers that the
applicant has not adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood that the applicant's communications have been
intercepted (loc. cit. No. 12015/86, p. 119). Therefore, the Commission
finds that, even assuming exhaustion of domestic remedies, the
applicant's complaints in this respect are unsubstantiated and, as
such, manifestly ill-founded. The Commission must therefore declare
this complaint of the applicant inadmissible pursuant to Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the
applicant's complaints under Articles 2 and 3 (Art. 2, 3)
of the Convention in relation to a failure to inform and advise
her parents as to her father's exposure during the nuclear tests
and as to a consequent risk to the applicant's health;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy